On Point

Outagamie County v. J.J.H., 2021AP244, District 3, 9/14/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Though J.J.H.’s primary challenge to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment is about the insufficiency of the evidence to prove dangerousness, the court of appeals (aided by the County’s concession) holds that the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness, as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.

Eau Claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014-FT, 6/22/21, District 3; (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity

A month ago District 3 reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court had violated Langlade County v. D.J.W. That is, the circuit court ordered a recommitment without making specific factual findings tied to one or more the standards of dangerousness in §51.20(1)(a)2. Thus, the court of appeals remanded the case and ordered the required factfinding. Upon reconsideration, the court of appeals has issued a new decision holding that the correct remedy is outright reversal.

Eau claire County v. J.M.P., 2020AP2014, 5/25/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Last term, SCOW ordered circuit courts deciding recommitment cases to make specific factual findings referencing the standard of dangerousness that supported a person’s recommitment. See Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶3, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. In J.M.P., the circuit court violated this rule, so the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for additional fact-finding. Unfortunately, this remedy creates significant burdens for people recommitted in violation of D.J.W and due process.

Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.

Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.

Winnebago County v. J.S., 2024AP1333, 3/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another case testing the applicability of SCOW’s D.J.W. mandate, COA finds that the circuit court “barely” satisfied those requirements and affirms.

Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity; petition for review granted 11/17/25

COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.

Waupaca County v. A.L.H., 2024AP1526, 1/30/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While many litigators may have believed the issue of a remedy for a D.J.W. violation had been clarified by SCOW, COA holds that recent precedent does not preclude a circuit court from making the required findings during postconviction proceedings.

Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication.  The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.